On 12/13/02 9:15 AM, "NSURIT@xxxxxxx" <NSURIT@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> It might be helpful to know what are the other choices of focal lengths.
> Like CH Ling, I would like something a little longer. I've been using and
> liking a 180mm recently, however many of the zooms will give you that range.
> I would also want a 2X and the Vivitar macro focusing probably being my
> choice when looking for quality and bang for my buck.
Well in terms of choices, the list I gave was basically my entire lens
collection. As I mentioned to CH Ling, I don't have anything longer than the
135.
> Of the lenses you suggested, I would probably take the 21, 28, 50 (would make
> mine the f1.4), 90/2.5 ,135mm as they all use 49mm filters and then I would
> add a zoom or longer focal length telephoto. The 75-150, 100-200 and the
> 200mm f5 all use 49mm filters and with the possible exception of the 200mm f5
> should be available for under $100.
Well my 90/2.5 is the 2nd generation (52BB) which takes 55mm filters. So
from the filter size standpoint the 85/2 makes more sense, and it's also
much smaller and lighter. However, if I were to acquire a 200/4 then I could
have 3 lenses (35/2, 90/2.5, 200/4) that take 55mm filters in my kit.
Generally I don't use a lot of filters (usually only UV and polarizer). I
agree though that the 24 could be dropped, which would leave room in the
camera bag for a longer lens (200/4) if I were to acquire one. Throw in a
1.4x or 2x converter and I'd really have some long reach if I need it.
As for the 50, I mentioned 1.8 in my list but where I need to replace it
anyways, it could easily be a 1.4.
> An adequate kit, might include the Tamron 60-300mm, Zuiko 28-48mm and Zuiko
> 50mm f1.4. We know, no self respecting Zuikoholic would consider carrying
> such a kit, however it would allow one to change lenses less frequently and
> "enjoy the ride" a bit more.
Well currently I don't own any OM zooms and I'm not as much of a fan of zoom
lenses. This is one of the reasons why I'm taking 2 bodies.
> Now that I've suggested all these lenses that use the same filter size, let
> me say that for my trip and if I were going on yours I would want some "fast
> glass." That could be accomplished with the 50mm f1.4 and I would be tempted
> to slip a f2 or two in my kit. In fact that is what I'll do. The really
> "big & fast glass" will stay at home, however I'll have some stuff that
> requires 55mm filters.
Well that could be a good argument for keeping the 35/2 in and for the 85/2
over the 90/2.5. As well, I think it makes a good case for the 200/4 over a
200/5, especially if I'm going to be using a converter with it. The 85/2 is
barely larger than a 50/1.8 and the 35/2 isn't that big either.
> One thing I will consider is what will fit under an airplane seat or in the
> overhead. I sure wouldn't want to show up at the airport with my soft
> case/back pack and be told I had to give it to the luggage gorillas to put in
> luggage compartment because it was too big. It will be a long flight
> agonizing flight if you stuff is in the bowels of the plane, rather than with
> you. It will be a long flight regardless, but at least you can avoid the
> agony part.
Fortunately, I have travelled already with my camera backpack and have had
no troubles with taking it as carry-on. When I was last in Europe, I even
had a sleeping bag and bicycle helmet attached to the outside and they still
let me take it on the plane with me!
> The tripod issue is one I haven't resolved yet. Yes, I would like a carbon
> fiber, however haven't decided to spring for the bucks yet. I do carry a
> table top tripod sometimes which can be helpful if I want to be in the
> picture or for some macro work. Have thought about a monopod and the carbon
> fiber still calls out to me.
My concern with a pod in general is whether I'll get much use out of it
where I'm travelling with a group. It's an extra piece of gear to lug around
that I might never get the opportunity to use because of having to keep up
with the group. This is also part of my feeling towards taking macro gear. I
might see some good macro opportunities but I might not have the chance to
stop and set up the shot. My current pod is a great pod but I think it's too
large/heavy to take on this kind of trip. If I do take a pod, I think I'm
going to need to get either a smaller model (such as a table top) or carbon
fibre. I suppose a monopod would be another option. I believe there are some
that double as a walking stick? The extra utility of having a walking stick
could be handy in it's own right and having some extra support would be nice
(especially if I take a longer lens).
--
Andrew "Frugal" Dacey
frugal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.tildefrugal.net/
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|